39mp underwater

Here is a wide angle sample

H3D with 28mm lens. Shot at 400iso f8 1/125 at 85ft deep.

1-Original

2-cropped left to right

3-cropped at extreme right right

The bottom of the frame was again inches away from me.

Troy

2# image

#3 image

OK, so here we appear to see some softness in the corners, not unlike other rigs

Stich on diver. On the original image file I can see in detail every stich as well as seeing the texture w/o looking pixelated or digital.

Hello Loftus,

Yes, I agree and by continuing to post images in the real world experiences, we can judge objectively. Now, was this caused by being out of focus by using f.8? If you look closely, the diver is about 2ft further from the far left and right of the image. As you go from center to edge the coral walls were increasingly closer to the port on both sides. I think that contributed to it. However, there has to be some distortion going on. I don't think it's perfect, but man I can live with whatever it is because it isn't much at all.

As far as ergonomics go, everything is at my fingertips with big knobs to turn with no obstruction at all. Now with 10mm super wide angle 35mm set ups, do you get more distortion than what you see here? And if there is none at all, with what you see in mine can there not be a bigger print created?

Troy

I tried to find something fairly similar. Here are a couple of uncropped photos taken in your neck of the woods with a D200 and 12-24mm lens at the 24 end. This lens is not one of our better lenses underwater in my opinion.

BTW, do you know Nick Fenley, he thinks he knows you.

Hello Loftus,

 

Yes, I agree and by continuing to post images in the real world experiences, we can judge objectively. Now, was this caused by being out of focus by using f.8. If you look closely the diver is about 2ft further from the far left and right of the image. As you go from center to edge the coral walls were increasingly closer to the port on both sides. I think that contributed to it. However, there has to be some distortion going on, I don't think it's perfect but man I can live with whatever it because it isn't much at all.

 

As far as ergonomics go, everything is at my fingertips with big nobs to turn with no obstruction at all. Now with 10mm super wide angle 35mm set ups do you get more distortion than what you see here. And if there is none at all, with what you see in mine can there not be a bigger print created?

 

Troy

Awesome Loftus,

Finally someone is posting at least something to get some comparisons going. Do you have any images that have subject right to the end on both sides of the frame? And also can you do the two same crops I did keeping the file over 400kb?

Nice shots Loftus, I think my 28mm is like your 22mm. When you see these 2 images at 100% on your monitor, are they sharp where the coral is or do the colors become a little smudged that can be hidden in an 8x10 and revealed as a little smudged printed, say to 24x30?

Also what were your settings? Usually the staff photographers shoot around f8 at these depths.

Is Nick one of the staff photographers at Stuart Cove's Dive from Austrialia?

Please post those samples Loftus, I would really appreciate it.

These are shot at f4 and f5.6 respectively ISO 100, probably with the strobes at about 1/4 power. I do not consider them to be great shots, I only post them to demonstrate what I mean by the loss of edge sharpness with the 12-24 behind a dome with +2 diopter, similar to what I see on your reef shot.

The resolution of your rig is obviously streets ahead of the D200, in the center of the frame particularly.

I'll look around for some other images and post if I think they have something to demonstrate that's on topic.

Nick used to work for Stuart Cove in '94 - he's from the UK though folks often think he's from Australia.

Hello Loftus,

This is exactly the type of posting I can really enjoy. I firmly believe as others post their own illustrations, along with their own personal experience, then others can join in with tech talk that relates rather than getting too deep with tech talk, being void of the same. Don't worry about posting "compelling" shots, it's not what this thread has been about or at least why I started it. A compelling shot that happened to be taken by either format would be great but these shots don't happen every day. I desire to learn what my rig is capable of and possibly measure it by others who have had hands on experience with 35mm. To say what either format can and can't do simply by white spec papers simply will lead to tension. We all have already seen this and now we are in the right direction. Thank you Loftus.

I don't remember him or at least I can"t see him in my mind's eye.

Regards,

Troy.

You'll have to prove that, Dan. The number is about 57%, and I'm not going to take your word that Troy's software is better or that his residual image is better. One thing that is inarguable is that, once Troy crops out 60% of his pixels, his enlargement capability is similar to a 1Ds2.

That is exactly what I said!

Not if he wants to preserve his IQ and print size advantages he can't. Furthermore, cropping in the manner you suggest gets Troy about a 35mm frame width. A 1Ds2 can easily do better than that (it starts out there with every lens!) and the difference is quite valuable.

 

Yes, Dan, Troy would in essence be converting his MF rig into a 35mm one without any IQ benefits, without any print size benefits, without any high ISO benefits, and with only a 120mm macro lens option that offers only f/4 for focus and no 1.4x teleconverter. Sounds like a loser to me. You are always so eager to discard all the benefits of MF when arguing that macro isn't so bad, then turn around and extoll the virtues of MF image quality ignoring the fact that you've discarded it.

Once you get to a 1:1 pixel ratio in the RIP, i.e. each pixel in the camera image being mapped to a single pixel on the C-print, any additional data is pretty well moot. Remember me writing, (a)lso, the number of pixels a camera can deliver is overrated, when it comes to digital photo prints (as opposed to inkjet).?

Troy, the shot at the top of page 8 (with the two crops), shot at ISO 400, is very quiet. I would be interested to see the results at (an equivalent) ISO = 800 when you upgrade the firmware.

Also, why only f/8? Could you get another stop of power out of your strobes and stop down to f/11?

Lastly -- And you'll have to check with the software engineers at Hasselblad on this -- you'll probably have to correct for distortions in Flexcolor or Phocus caused by the port/lens pair you use. There may -- And I underline may -- be either advanced options for corrections for other than H-series lenses; or perhaps there's an internal version they can supply you that has this capability.

[i don't have the name at my fingertips, but there is an open-source program for panorama stitching that also can be used for correcting lens aberrations. It is command-line based; but there are also several GUI front ends for it. I'll have to dig it up and post it, as I believe it could be helpful to all if it can be configured for correcting for any optical path -- Including a given lens-port combo.]

Here is a wide angle sample

 

H3D with 28mm lens. Shot at 400iso f8 1/125 at 85ft deep.

1-Original

2-cropped left to right

3-cropped at extreme right right

 

The bottom of the frame was again inches away from me.

Good Evening Dan,

Yes! Quiet indeed. Converting the same 3.fff files to dng would introduce a little noise when going out to tiff. However, staying in Flexcolor always results in clean sharp conversions with no evidence of softening. I could have gone to f11 or even f16 but the backgroung would have gone darker than I would have liked. I was 85ft deep and overcast that day. That was my 3rd dive with the mf. Next time I will play with 1/60 to compensate. Even slower shutter speeds to create some motion. So far I have been playing it safe with 1/125 and taking it slow.

I was at 1/4 power and most definately had a good 2 stops of light left over.

Let us know what you find out.

Thanks,

Troy

Why don't you guys have a read through Thom Hogan's RAW photo primer:

http://www.bythom.com/qadraw.htm

You'll be interested to note that just because the noise reduction is set to 0 (in whatever program you are using) there may still be noise reduction going on. Just an FYI.

Cheers

James

That is exactly what I said!

 

...

 

Once you get to a 1:1 pixel ratio in the RIP, i.e. each pixel in the camera image being mapped to a single pixel on the C-print, any additional data is pretty well moot. Remember me writing, (a)lso, the number of pixels a camera can deliver is overrated, when it comes to digital photo prints (as opposed to inkjet).?

Dan, you said "Troy can easily crop out 60% of the pixels and still have as many to play with as in the 16 million in a 1DsII image... and still have a better image because of better software." Do you see the "still have a better image" nonsense, Dan? That's what I said you had to prove and that's, of course, what you will not. This is all about avoidance and obfuscation with you. Bluffing us with name dropping and technical terms that you clearly have limited grasp of just tries our patience.

Regarding printing, it's not even relevant to the discussion. You don't have to print to care about IQ differences between these cameras. Nevertheless, I'm not the one boasting of 5'x8' prints, Troy is.

I don't care what the standard is, but the standard must apply equally to all cameras in the discussion. Paul asked me to define IQ but did not respond to my answer. Once a standard is applied equally to all cameras, the standard itself drops out of the comparison. That's the beauty of division.

The fact is that H3D sensor is roughly a 1.5x larger version of a 1Ds3 sensor, and the 1Ds3 is roughly a 1.5x larger version of the 40D sensor. Any experience between DX and full frame is relevant in this discussion except that moving up to H3D from full frame means giving up a lot of valuable lenses.

If you want to define IQ based solely on identical print sizes, then fine. An H3D can shoot macro with a perspective ranging from 70mm to 120mm and still match the enlargement capability of a 1Ds2 or 1Ds3. The Canon camera, however, is much more capable than that. The Canon offers focal lengths that range from 50mm to 180mm without the use of teleconverters and very high quality 1.4x converters are available. Canon will win this comparison easily. If all you want to do is shoot angelfish portraits, either will do.

Of course, beyond certain people struggling to find an argument in favor of the H3D, there's no reason to approach the H3D this way at all. No one in their right mind would house an H3D in order to achieve results no better than what a 1Ds2 can do.

I'm tired of the relentless double standards and refusal of the MF advocates to discuss these matters in standardized, objective terms. What's happening here is certain people want to view the H3D in "faith-based" terms. Digital SLRs and sensor sizes are not a religion and there is nothing mystical about larger sensor that makes a system better. We know why larger sensors are better, and if the resultant system can't apply those advantages in a meaningful way then it is not an improvement.

To say what either format can and can't do simply by white spec papers simply will lead to tension.

35mm DLSR example images have been posted here for ages and you can learn about the capabilities of those systems through a little research of your own. It's nice that others offer examples for you in this thread but the information is already available.

I'm surprised that you hadn't researched 35mm already since you bypassed those solutions in order to custom-house your H3D. If the ultimate goal is to produce large commercial prints, then proceeding with the H3D in ignorance of 35mm seems like foolish risk of company resources. If it were my company, I might have to fire someone who spent 10s of thousands to custom house a $35K studio body without first researching what a system at 1/4 the price was capable of.

Dear Craig,

Here is my first post-

Hello everyone,

I have recently purchased a new housing from UK-Germany designed for the H3D by Hasselblad. A medium format digital camera with 39mp's. I am using 2-Subronic Nova strobes that have the batteries built into the arms. Also a spotlight overhead to create contrast if needed. The lenses I use are the 120mm Macro, 80mm and the new 28mm wide. I use the flexcolor software to edit the raw files along with Photoshop CS3.

Observations:

Housing

built like a tank and well balanced u/w (more on housing later)

Camera

all functions operate to 40ft/basic functions to 120ft

crazy detail and colour reproduction (raw file 55mp/tiff file 225mp)

camera can produce 5ft.x8ft. prints (16bit through colorbyte rip)

with no loss of quality on Epson 9800 printer.

looks like film w/o the grain

wide angle focus is fast enough and ultra sharp

macro focus is an area that I am still learning. (more on macro shooting later)

Strobes

produce wide even light

Each battery lasts up to 185 shots on TTL and 140 full power

dials are at your fingertips and work perfectly

Photos soon to come

Thanks to Uwe at UK-Germany my dream has come true

regards,

Troy

THIS IS NOT A WHITE SPEC SHEET, I'S A REPORT OF MY INITIAL FINDINGS.

You seem to be the most antagonistic person on this thread bent on misrepresenting me. I don"t honestly see how this is benefiting anyone on this thread or those who are following along. My u/w set-up cost was 13K, not "TENS OF THOUSANDS". This was an equal amount quoted to me to take my 1ds u/w of par quality.

Again,you seem to be making yet another excuse to not post any of your own illustrations to practically demonstate your points. Please don't discourage others from posting 35mm format images to further this thread. This is is my personal equipment and also a family business. I have seen and researched the 35 u/w for a few years now and in fact took my own 1ds u/w. I have also seen first hand 35mm u/w prints and most of them look too digital for me. I personally am intensely enjoying my equipment and I am very much willing to work within its discovered limits. Also I prefer ccd over cmos.

Will you or will you not post an image Craig? I would greately appreciate that. If not, then something is wrong with this "picture"

Thanking you in advance Craig,

Troy Aitken,

Aitken Imaging

Guys you are really ruining this post for everybody making of it your personal playground...

Let it go... and keep posting some images to compare and see what are the pros and cons of MF UW.

Troy there is a really bad weather going on in the bahamas? dude!, what happend with those sunballs and sunrays??? Get wet mate!!!

Again... there is no point on keep defending your self stands about something already discussed...

Dan you better start taking some UW images before all the forum take it on you...

P.S.: At least if this post did not serve for was primary intended to do, could be a "who knows the most about tech stuff" post... (at least I know who I´m going to PM when I have serious technical matters...)

Felix, I'm following this thread closely because I'm already shooting AF medium format (Mamiya 645AFd), am waiting for a Phase One P21 digiback to pop up on the trade-in market, and am (at least was) looking to take the whole thing underwater, either for film or digital on Grand Cayman, where my parents have several time-share weeks on the East End.

The "was" comes from the ergonomics of a medium format housing vs my (lack of) SCUBA diving skills.

Dan you better start taking some UW images before all the forum take it on you...

Dan,

What Felix is suggesting is that you are not following the thread you are posting comments and insights as if you have some actual experience with what is being discussed. That said, he is not the only one who has noted this and as a result a number of members are getting annoyed at your disruptions to what may be a beneficial threads of information to others who are truly following the discussion.

He, like everyone here value practical experience and insight in making their own personal decisions about shooting and gear purchases. For many it is a very costly decision.

We certainly encourage practical insights and lively discussions with differing experiences. What we do worry about is members trying to garner information about possible future purchases and them basing those decisions on potentially inaccurate and inexperienced accounts. Thus Craig's enthusiasm with regards to his responses.

Please recognize the importance of this to the forums.

Respectfully submitted

One of the things I would like to add to the discussion here, that Troy may or may not appreciate, and Dan cannot appreciate, by virtue of his lack of experience underwater, is the issue of lens availability as they relate to MF vs Full Frame or DX DSLR's.

If one follows the underwater photography 'scene' I think it will become obvious, that the most exciting photography being produced by the top guys today is at the extremes of macro and close focus wide angle / fisheye. Much of the stuff in between has either been done before, or very often from a photographic perspective are just 'snapshots' underwater artistically, even if the image quality is superb.

Personally, I have no interest in trying to just reproduce what others have done, or simply produce 'snapshots' underwater, no matter how high the image quality.

Just my perspective on why lens availability etc is so important underwater.

Similarly, it is important to understand why we keep harping on things like sunballs etc with CFWA and fisheye images. These are the type of shots where many of us, at least in DX format, are less than satisfied with our results on many occasions. The point being, that if MF can only offer us extremely high quality snapshots, but cannot offer us exciting images at the macro and wide angle extremes, then MF will not be of much interest, even if we could afford it.

One of the things I would like to add to the discussion here, that Troy may or may not appreciate, and Dan cannot appreciate, by virtue of his lack of experience underwater, is the issue of lens availability as they relate to MF vs Full Frame or DX DSLR's.

Thank you!

You are the first to present a cogent argument about the "scene" in UW photography, and lens choice... And your point is well taken.

I'm coming in from the "lab rat" side, where image quality -- and reproducing it -- is king; and photographers & commercial photo labs spend tens of thousands of dollars for improvements... As Troy has done.

If one follows the underwater photography 'scene' I think it will become obvious, that the most exciting photography being produced by the top guys today is at the extremes of macro and close focus wide angle / fisheye. Much of the stuff in between has either been done before, or very often from a photographic perspective are just 'snapshots' underwater artistically, even if the image quality is superb.

Personally, I have no interest in trying to just reproduce what others have done, or simply produce 'snapshots' underwater, no matter how high the image quality.

(Cut)

So, if I read you right, you place photo composition ahead of image quality? That is a legitimate "philosophy" -- And one that I was not made aware until now with respect to UW shooting... Thank you for pointing this out!